I hear a lot of my conservative friends getting excited about Mike Huckabee. As Chuck Baldwin reveals (click here), there no reason to think this man from Hope will be much different than the last one. He raised taxes, promoted liberals while heading the Arkansas Baptist Convention, “seeks validation from elites” and exploits white guilt for political advantage by comparing illegals to “slaves brought here in chains” claiming “God has given us a second chance”. Any southern white man who says something like that is either deeply defective and self-loathing like Bill Clinton or a callous manipulator. No one representing OUR interests would try and use a distorted version of events that happened over a century ago to manipulate our people today into committing national suicide by the wholesale immigration of unassimable groups.
What I’m seeing in the Presidential race this time is a stark choice for the evangelicals: your soul or your war? Will you compromise on abortion, homosexuality, immigration and every other “values” issue to get your stupid war (polls show, unbelievably, that Giuliani leads among evangelicals)? Because outside of “Jesus is coming any minute now”-rapture-land, the rest of the country is tired of fighting Israel’s wars for them. To beat Hillary, we have to let go of the war.
Aside from Tancredo and Hunter, who likely have no chance at this point, only Ron Paul is to Hillary’s left on the war and is orthodox on every other significant conservative position. I believe he could bring in the loony left in alliance with the hard right. They get an end to the war they hate (for the wrong reasons, admittedly, but politics is about coalitions) and can legalize pot in Vermont. We can end abortion and stop the ethnic cleansing of our state by Mexico here in Texas. And we can stop fighting each other (and thus turn our attention to the more important task of purging our ranks of the traitors who only pretend to advance our cause) and live in a true federal system.
So the choice is yours. The war or your political soul?
You did not mention that Huckabee’s director of policy is a hard core feminist.
This is an interesting discussion, and I completely disagree on your synopsis of the war, but I do have a moral conundrum when it comes to the decision that you mentioned above. It articulates very accurately the problem I’m facing as I look towards the presidential election.
I absolutely CANNOT vote for someone who supports abortion. I WILL not vote for someone who supports homosexuality and immigration. And who does that leave me with?
Ron Paul makes me nervous, though, on national security. I’m not talking about just the war – I’m talking about the total idea of our safety. I don’t know where he stands on issues of keeping up safe, and the moral issues of true suffering and dictatorships in other countries – especially ones that will (sooner or later) affect our own national security.
Any comments?
I too would have concerns that Paul may not understand the intentions of Muslims. His public rhetoric, previous private rhetoric aside (such as his comments on the LA riots), seems to indicate that particularly libertarian inability to see that humans are both individuals AND parts of groups.
Thanks to IQ differences and genetic regression to the mean, admitting Muslim doctors in the first generation produces jihadists in the second generation. Blood always tells, as southerners used to say.
There’s no Christian imperative for going into other lands seeking monsters to slay (I seem to recall a similar episode of theologically-challenged Westerners getting involved in Middle Eastern politics for religious reasons, about 800 years ago; our current adventure will likely have the same result: lots of blood and treasure wasted for nothing, on a part of the world that will never change).
And if we get our heads right here and in Europe about WHO we are, Islam will not be a threat. No Muslims in the US, no terrorism. No need for preventative wars. If they violate one inch of our territory, we will hit them hard in the tradition of Charles Martel and Queen Isabella. But we will not waste blood and treasure trying to reform them through military means.
My solution might be “off the radar” politically right now, but at least it’s not certifiably insane like the neocon/Bush policy of “invade the world / invite the world”.
However, we only have the choices in front of us. And Paul is the only candidate who I believe offers any hope of a political solution our nation’s most important enemy: the federal government. He may be a libertarian I would never want as a governor of a state, but as President he wants to “take it out back and kill it”. The feds and neoconservative distractions are ten times the problem to our nation as “Islamo-fascism” (a ridiculous term, as if these backwards 85-IQ Arab populations could ever measure up militarily to 1930’s Germany, arguably at that time the world’s most scientifically advanced civilization).
Given that the federal government is our enemy, it needs a libertarian to head it. Then the states can challenge and deconstruct federal authority with impunity, and Paul would do nothing, rightly in my view because virtually all federal abuses are unconstitutional.
It must be first delegitimized, then defied, and finally have its authority openly mocked. Paul offers this opportunity politically, which is why I find the prospect of his presidency to be a pleasant surprise. I didn’t think someone like Paul could be elected nationally. It now seems possible, though still improbable.
I had always assumed it would take bold state-level leadership at a moment of national crisis to sever the bonds of federal tyranny. That could result in a nasty shooting war, something that would be better off avoided. Paul truly does offer Hope for America.
I am even getting a glimmer of hope that the whole enterprise could be reformed, negating the need for secession. Young people who cheer for sound money and a sane foreign policy are on the road to truth. You never know how far that might go.
Postscript: I don’t think Paul is quite as asinine a libertarian as some of his followers (I think he would likely make a good governor of a state, actually), but right now he is moving his rhetoric to the left to gain antiwar support in NH and Iowa. I would expect him to move back to the right, his historical home, in time for the SC primary. I should say that libertarians are generally good people, and their ideology explains the individual/economic side of life well (they make for good businessmen and employees); that’s exactly why they find it so tempting to make everything in life about economics, which is their mistake.
The only correction I would suggest is that Paul is the only candidate to the right of Hillary, which puts him near the historical progressive take on it… and dead center of the Constitution. Those neocon positions are hard to nail down in the traditional left-right continuum, though… A Trotskyist basis for conservatism? Gimme a break!
I would correct my earlier comment about Paul not making a good governor. Again, I get in trouble when I think in abstractions, when in real life you get choices between real people. When I think of our current faux-conservative idiot governor, Rick Perry, why in the world would I NOT want Paul?
Considered in light of Rick Perry, it’s hard to imagine getting anything worse. In fact, I recently heard a radio interview with Kinky Friedman, during which a listener called in and suggested a follow-up bumper sticker for Kinky to use next time:
“Vote Kinky — Why the hell didn’t we?”
Can’t argue with that.
“No one representing OUR interests would try and use a distorted version of events that happened over a century ago to manipulate our people today into committing national suicide by the wholesale immigration of unassimable groups.”
I could not agree more. Which is one reason “forced immigration” (slavery) of an unassimable group has been so devistating to our country.
Tom, you seem to be flipant about the prospects of a “shooting war”. Even though you admit it should be avoided. I wonder how you and your family, your business, would fair if an actual shooting war broke out? I wonder how any of us would fair.
You are correct, in a constitutional sense to declare that the “South was Right”, and that Lincoln was a despot. But IMO you pine too romantic about secession and what it would accomplish. There was a political solution in 1860 and there is a politcal solution now. We have to have the patience and perserverance to see it come about.
The South was stupid to fire on Federal troops and stupid to embrace and hold on to the institution of slavery. The price plantation owners could have paid residents and voluntary immigrants to pick cotton pales in comparison to the cost (human and monetary) of the war.
The virtually unfettered chaotic immigration we are now allowing will bring about many of the same results slavery has wrought. The reason(s) it is allowed (greed and power) have not changed.
Recent case law at the Federal level has revived the Tenth Amendment. That is why selection of Federal judges is so critical. That is why I believe it is not too late for a political and legal solution to what is damaging our beloved Republic. That is why we must nominate a Republican candidate that is electable and will appoint truly conservative judges and officials.
Mitch, I don’t see where I’ve been at all flippant about a shooting war, which I agree in the current context is counterproductive. Maybe you mean my post of this morning, where I used the plural first person in regards to the consequences of a potential assassination that many of my conservative friends think likely given the evil behind this government. If they do that, I think there could be a shooting war. I won’t personally participate in that, though I will take a favorable view if on a jury.
The actual throwing of sand in the gears is the job of unattached young men, a group I am thankfully not a part of. There are a lot of them who believe Ron Paul is the political solution as you say, and if that’s denied to them through violence the system can only expect (and deserve) violence in return. I’m not saying it’s the preferred outcome, but it’s possible.
I’m also hesitant to play Monday morning quarterback with our patriot southern ancestors, who from my reading of history were far braver, virtuous and Christian than any generation since (which makes sense, because the best were killed off by the war). Very few Americans today, probably including myself, would make the sacrifices they made for liberty. And they almost won.
I think a lot of southerners today want to feel a sense of superiority over their ancestors, intellectual and especially moral, for this is the only thing that ameliorates the discomfort of the long shadow cast by their bravery and fortitude.
As we all make our little compromises with the evil that reigns in our country (esp. in regards to the comfort and prosperity the system is temporarily providing), it helps to think of how much better we are than people who are dead and not around to defend themselves.
The fact that Christian southerners today support, cheer for, and fight wars for our abortion-enabling immigrant-invasion-supporting government while beating themselves up over slavery shows how deeply political correctness has infected our souls.
I don’t know any Christian Southerners beating themselves up over slavery. That’s a straw man argument. And in my view many of The Plantation owners of the South had a lot in common with the business interests of the present who desire cheap labor, a desperate workforce, and the suppression of wages. In the long run the social and cultural cost(s) far outweigh the benefit.
I admit there are many Christian southerners blindly cheering for a political party that has lost it’s conservative bearings. A party too willing to ask for their vote and then abandon their issues.
As far as Monday morning quarterbacking: Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
I completely agree that cheap foreign labor is bad for a nation and the economy, whether wage slavery or the conventional type. At least the southern slave owner had to provide health care and old age care, and was personally liable for any crimes committed by his cheap labor.
The current users of cheap Mexican labor pocket the profits and throw the social costs on the rest of us.
But the two positions aren’t morally equivalent, as slaveholding was forced upon the South by New England slave traders and the Crown. The Virginia House of Burgesses attempted to stop it but were overruled. See Dabney’s Defense of the South for more information. They did a good job of making the best out of a less-than-ideal situation, all the while hounded by the same New England religious fanatics.
We can learn from history without making judgments on those who do not have our benefit of hindsight.
While I dearly hope by the above comments that we all here agree that to foment open, armed rebellion — at this point in the game — would be foolish, I likewise also hope that if it gets to that point, any and all patriotic Americans would be willing to “pledge our lives, our fourtunes, and our sacred honor,” if necessary.
I have a friend, a history teacher, now a high school vice principal, who subscribes to the idea that Lincoln did what was necessary to preserve the Union. He thinks Lincoln’s actions were justified because, ipso facto, the States were reunited. That, and the institution of slavery — regardless of other considerations — was immoral.
Mitch, you’re right in that the slavery argument (and its corollary of de facto racism in the South) is a straw man, but all else that the Confederacy existed for is still valid today (The South, by the 19th century, by the way, did not so much “embrace slavery” as find itself mired in a situation of its forbears’ making, surrounded by a very large contingent of people with no common heritage, and were faced with the prospect of suddenly being their civic equals; many — if not all — recognized the illegitimacy of the institution, but were at a loss on how to correct it without destroying the fabric of their society… Sounds somewhat like the immigration debacle of today, don’t it? — I know I’ll be excoriated for that one): the defense of individual liberties, the muzzling of the federal government, the right-of self-determination and the responsibility of self-reliance, all still resonate in the hearts of true Americans who have a sense of America, and an understanding that, without that unique document, the Constitution, America is meaningless. (Which begs the question, “Did anyone really win the ‘Civil War’?”)
The cold, hard reality is that freedom can only thrive when good men are willing to stand up and fight — and die — for it. That seems so distant, so barbaric an idea in today’s genteel pedestrian society; generations of too much safety, of too much security in our power and our righteousness, has taken the steel out of our spines. I hope I am wrong; moreover, I hope I never have to find out whether I am.
Tom, I’d like to hear an elucidation of your “unattached young men” comment; it sounds awfully like the “much to lose” argument of Robert the Bruce. Surely, I’m mistaken?
PS:
I meant to mention that, perhaps, the historical lesson is a cautionary tale that should be heeded by the Beast, as you call it, Tom: that freedom-loving Americans, when pushed too far, will push back.
Of course, the coincident question is, how long will this last?
I think a convincing case can be made that slavery was bad for the country, but good for the slaves. We have a perfect longitudinal study, which reveals that former slaves here are universally better than their cousins overseas. Which follows my belief that reparations should only be paid to any family who demonstrates net damages by moving back and renouncing citizenship. Dabney covers the moral and Biblical arguments better than I, but the main point is that there’s self-evidently no damages.
That battle is long over, and I do not wish to refight it. My concern is only where historical myths cause us to give up the psychological high ground. Guilt is a political weapon. Part of unhooking from the Matrix is piercing the pimple of Western guilt-myths by looking at historical sources like Dabney. Only free of guilt can we meet our enemies in the open and not duck for cover at the first allegations of “racism” or whatever of the various “*ism” myths advances their political interests that day.
As for your comments about Robert the Bruce, in the film he was a noble who knew he would be spared the fate of his people if he accommodated the crown. To not be like Bruce is my goal, to share in the struggles of my people. It would be easy to “insulate”, buy a few hundred acres in the middle of nowhere, or live in one of those few idyllic little mountain towns in Appalachia, but I choose to live where real people live and where there are real problems to be solved. Texas in particular is probably not a great long-term bet for purely individual interests, unless there’s a fight along the way to prevent it from turning into East California. I am betting on a fight, though.
As a married man with children, though, even if I thought violence was the appropriate strategy (which I do not, given the success of non-violent regime change in Eastern Europe and other places), it would not be prudent or Scriptural to get involved until my family was under threat, or in a situation where there was an organized military effort by a coherent political entity representing my interests that was fighting a defensive war. The men at Lexington and Concord didn’t march on Boston, they waited until the British came for their firearms.
Forgive me for sorta playing “devil’s advocate.” A hot war would be quite unlikely to succeed anyway, without a wholesale defection of the military.
To illustrate, let me discuss just one weapon in the vast US arsenal: the Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM) cruise missile. The favored weapon of Bill Clinton for destroying aspirin factories (when he was caught with his hand in the — ahem! — cookie jar), the TLAM Block III (prior to the newest generation — which is a much more impressive weapon — ie, when I was in the Navy) had a max range of around 700 nm (if I remember correctly); that’s roughly twice the distance from Houston to OK City, or about the distance from Houston to Des Moines, IA.
This very versatile weapon system has an array of different warhead options, which I’m not sure I can discuss due to security constraints (I swore an oath… darn that honesty!) Suffice it to say, it can take out pretty much any target it needs to. And a single Los Angeles (688I) Class sub can launch over two dozen of these bad boys.
But like I said, this weapon system is much improved since I left the Navy, from longer range, to more agile flight programming, to mid-flight retargeting for new targets of opportunity. And it’s just one of the many options available to quash open rebellion.
Let me be clear — in the current political environment, as of the past decade or so — I see no reason any POTUS would order his generals to exercise more restraint than Lincoln used with Sherman. There would doubtless be no street-to-street fighting, at least not until after the back of the resistance had been crushed. A Second Confederacy would leave the government no choice but to assure the South would never rise again.
The overwhelming military supremacy of the US has put to bed any possibility of open revolt. Long gone are the days when a group of armed patriots could rise up and oust a federal tyrant. So — short of the spontaneous dissolution of the US government, at which point this discussion would be moot — the only available option is a political one.
But then, it’s much harder to convince an adversary you’re right, than to just beat him umtil he gives in.
All governments must have the passive consent of the people to exist.
If Eastern Europeans beat down by 50 years of Communism and no real heritage of liberty and freedom can throw off their chains by merely withdrawing their consent and flooding into the streets, then it is clear that the same thing can happen here.
That’s why we never hear much about exactly what happened in the Baltic states and other places in the late 80’s. They don’t want us getting ideas.
Now Eastern Europe enjoys double digit economic growth, no immigration problems to speak of and very low taxes compared to the US. The fruits of freedom!
[...] Mike Huckabee, though not a member, spoke to the CFR in September. Since then, his political star has risen to the point that he has become a top-tier candidate. [...]
I prefer Tancredo or Hunter to Mike Huckabee. There is just sompthing so slimy about Huckabee. He makes my skin crawl. I watched the debate last night and was disgusted by how biased Anderson Cooper, host of the CNN/YouTube debate, is against Ron Paul and Tancredo. Paul’s ideas are very mainstream. He stands by the Constitution, and is for America and American citizens. The mass media just keeps trying to shove Huckabee, Romney and the other Republican neocons down the throat of the American people. The new stategy of corporate run media appears to be slandering Paul supporters as fringe dwellers and conspiracy theorists.